What would you do for unity?

[W2L]

Im not referring to the division between church and the world. We should be divided from the world. Thats holiness.

 

[chevyontheriver]

We could start by agreeing on what the narrow path is, and then rid ourselves of whatever is not the narrow path.

If we all move toward a greater faithfulness to truth we are moving closer together by definition. That's my consolation in all of this. Nobody has to reject anything actually true. We all need to be more truthful. Mostly we need to abandon stereotypes of those we do not agree with.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So division is good?

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 “For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 “and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."

It can be good, and it can be bad, it all depends on the content of said division. If the division is over the Christ of Scripture and His glorious Gospel, then I would say yes.

 

[brinny]

So division is good?

If one is speaking about separation (division) from the "world" and/or the "Church" that is deceptively just as much a part of the "world" as the "world" is:

Yes, "division" is GOOD.

We are to not only examine ourselves, but to be discerning regarding the "Church" and those in it, just as the Bereans were, who lined up EVERYTHING with God's Word, including the apostle Paul.

That's why they were called "commendable".

Discernment: 'Tis a GOOD thing.

 

[W2L]

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 “For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 “and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."

It can be good, and it can be bad, it all depends on the content of said division. If the division is over the Christ of Scripture and His glorious Gospel, then I would say yes.

Of course but im only referring to bad division.

 

[W2L]

If one is speaking about separation (division) from the "world" and/or the "Church" that is deceptively just as much a part of the "world" as the "world" is:

Yes, "division" is GOOD.

We are to not only examine ourselves, but to be discerning regarding the "Church" and those in it, just as the Bereans were, who lined up EVERYTHING with God's Word, including the apostle Paul.

That's why they were called "commendable".

Discernment: 'Tis a GOOD thing.

Yes i agree. I believe finding agreement is done by agreeing with the bible.

 

[W2L]

If we all move toward a greater faithfulness to truth we are moving closer together by definition. That's my consolation in all of this. Nobody has to reject anything actually true. We all need to be more truthful. Mostly we need to abandon stereotypes of those we do not agree with.

Thanks for the reply

 

[chevyontheriver]

Take a protestant and a catholic for example. What things would these two have to get rid of in order to be unified?

Prejudice. The refusal to want to understand the other.

 

[brinny]

Yes i agree. I believe finding agreement is done by agreeing with the bible.

THAT'S the stickler, isn't it?

In Christian circles at Church, and online, and elsewhere, there are varying degrees of testifying believers' stance on whether the Bible is even "legitimate" or to be taken seriously. Many believe what happened in Genesis, etc. is "fictional", etc.

 

[Pilgrim]

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 “For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 “and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."

It can be good, and it can be bad, it all depends on the content of said division. If the division is over the Christ of Scripture and His glorious Gospel, then I would say yes.

Thank you. Amen. Matthew 10:34 is instructive in God's word regarding various divisions among different peoples; and the price of separation from God for people who fail to abide in His word.

 

[chevyontheriver]

THAT'S the stickler, isn't it?

In Christian circles at Church, and online, and elsewhere, there are varying degrees of testifying believers' stance on whether the Bible is even "legitimate" or to be taken seriously. Many believe what happened in Genesis, etc. is "fictional", etc.

Can Sola Scriptura lead to unity or does it go the other way?

 

[brinny]

Thank you. Amen. Matthew 10:34 is instructive in God's word regarding various divisions among different peoples; and the price of separation from God for people who fail to abide in His word.

I agree with Apologetic_Warrior as well. Amen to what he posted. Jesus certainly wasn't saying in Matt 10:34 that there should be "unity at any cost", was He?

 

[brinny]

Can Sola Scriptura lead to unity or does it go the other way?

LOL!

Now this is perhaps one o' those "sticklers" in question, yes?

 

[fhansen]

Would you be willing to give up any divisive theology, for the sake of unity?

Agree wherever you can; don't compromise where you can't. It's always wrong to go against our own consciences.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Would you be willing to give up any divisive theology, for the sake of unity?

Remember that unity without truth is a conspiracy.

We would do well to be suspicious of religious leaders who - in the words of Jeremiah 6.14, say: "Peace, peace; when there is no peace."

Colossians 1.20 says that the Lord Jesus "made peace by the blood of His cross"; something that the natural man finds offensive, but which must be proclaimed.

 

[PloverWing]

Would you be willing to give up any divisive theology, for the sake of unity?

It's hard to picture changing my beliefs for the sake of unity, because my beliefs are, by definition, the things I think are true, and I can't just suddenly start thinking those things are false; belief doesn't work like that.

But I could change some of the things I do, or that my church does. I could compromise on the form of church government, or the layout of the church calendar (which liturgical seasons happen at which times), or the readings in the lectionary, or some of the specifics of the liturgy, if that were the only barrier to unity with another denomination. Negotiations like this happened, for example, in the formation of the Revised Common Lectionary, and in the recent agreement of full communion between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Can Sola Scriptura lead to unity or does it go the other way?

Yes it can, one only need to read history of the Reformation, history of the uniting creeds and confessions (The Three Forms of Unity is a collective name for the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism for example) to get a much clearer picture of unity among Protestants. Church unity was by far greater during the Reformation period than today. But I already hear the protest, creeds and confessions are not Scripture. True, but as secondary guides (of lesser authority), they serve to safeguard against human errors (among other things) in the quest of applying Sola Scriptura. It is of utmost importance to understand exactly what is meant by Sola Scriptura. I humbly refer to an article written by a far more capable theologian than myself: What Does Sola Scriptura Mean?

 

[dysert]

Would you be willing to give up any divisive theology, for the sake of unity?

My problem is with the expression "give up". Does that mean to stop (or start) believing something different from what I believe now? Or does it mean to not let those differences cause a break in the relationship?

For example, I used to belong to a PC(USA) church. I had to "give up" several things to feel comfortable there. For instance, I gave up on infant baptism; I gave up on sprinkling instead of immersion; and there were a few other things I gave up on that I no longer remember. But giving up in my case did not mean changing my beliefs. Rather it meant that I chose to not let the differences in our beliefs cause division.

There came a point, however, when PC(USA) crossed a (biblical) line that I could not accept, and we parted ways. So to answer the OP, yes, I can "give up" certain things for the sake of unity, but there are also certain things that I won't give up.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Would you be willing to give up any divisive theology, for the sake of unity?

Unity is the absence of division and strife.

I don't know if you are trying to encourage unity in the Church but your logic only gives support for those that divide the Church. The churches that elevate the importance of their doctrines over brotherhood in Christ are to blame for divisiveness. It is the headstrong that say my way is the only way, or the better way or the True way that make their words more important than God's.

And here is the sword they use to squash those that differ, calling them heretics as if they can judge one to not be in the elect. Doctrine is important but the minimum doctrine to be agreed on for salvation is very small. While I love to challenge one to defend what they believe, I do not consider them to not be a brother just because we differ. It is another fallacy promoted in churches, that to differ in any of your beliefs or practices is anathema. They don't recognize how much doctrine creep even the one sanctioned church of God's people was allowed to invent and teach as truth.

After being a Lutheran for 50 years, I came to the realization that doctrine is not above God's command. It is not truth to require membership to a certain church to take communion with them. Their closed communion common to other "high" churches usurps God's authority and command.

What I have found now is a Congregational Church that has a very basic common doctrine but allows people to differ on doctrine that matters not when we get to heaven.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Prejudice. The refusal to want to understand the other.

Prejudice. The Pre Judging of the other because you are just always correct. So you don't even listen to their argument, let alone try to understand the merits of their position.